Iran: better bomb than war?

Against the background of Iran’s new dialogue with the IAEA and the upcoming talks with the G6, the Iranian topic has once again become what is called urgent. This review examines several different views on a possible conflict between Iran and Israel and the United States, from the “doomsday” to a sober assessment of why Iran with an atomic bomb is no more dangerous than Iran without a bomb.

I. The destruction of America, Israel, the countries of NATO, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe and the planet Earth

Blogger Alexander Higgins пишет: “By all means and under any possible pretext, the Pentagon conducted military training. Israel has deployed its Iron Dome missile defense system. Top military officials have guaranteed that the fleet assembled in the Persian Gulf is able to neutralize the threat of Iran fleet and mines deployed in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and its allies have stopped importing Iranian oil and secured Saudi guarantees that the loss of Iranian oil will be reimbursed. Dozens of military bases surrounding Iran have plans to strike. Hundreds of Tomahawk warheads were assigned targets in the infrastructure; when targets are hit, Iranian defenses must be destroyed. Thousands have been adopted drones- spies who monitor every inch of Iranian soil in real time. Stealth bombers received flight plans escorted by B-52 bombers. The journalists are already there, ready to report. The stage is ready, all systems are on the move ... "

Well, everything seems. Day, two at most - and as a result of a clearly planned 21st century blitzkrieg, Iran will have only oil fields operating in the USA.

But no. Higgins leads to the fact that the heads will remain from the United States - it is only the last one to pop into Iranian territory. Though from the air, even on the ground. The result will be one: "Obama Kaput."

Why does Iran win in a possible war? Higgins names exactly ten reasons.

1. American technology "Stealth", which now owns the enemy. After all, recently Iran picked up a fallen stealth drone and soon reported that its technology has been studied: now invisible are visible to radar. The Americans declared it "propaganda," but who knows ...

2. Another technology that Iran has taken over is the principles of controlling unmanned aerial vehicles and rocket aiming.

Iran warned, the blogger wrote, that the top-secret technology of remotely controlled aircraft was also hacked. In the United States and this statement was treated not so arrogantly, or contemptuously. (Well, we note in brackets, the hegemon has long been accustomed to play its part). However, Iran, Higgins continues, can already not only intercept satellite signals, but also send its control signals to the high-tech weapons systems of the United States. And then the most terrible thing: “When stealth bombers approach their targets in Iran, the US will launch Tomahawk missiles, expecting hundreds of the most important Iranian facilities to be destroyed in a matter of minutes. Without taking into account the fact that when the rockets are in the air, Iran will change the coordinates on the rockets and direct them to completely different objects. ”

3. The next point, on which America will lose, is a reflection of electromagnetic impulses and rocket fire that will erase the military bases of the USA and Israel from the map.

Here, the blogger writes about the absolute confidence of the United States, Israel and Turkey in the reliability of the Iron Dome missile defense system. But Iran is aware that its missiles cannot overcome missile defense, therefore, developed a plan to bypass not only the anti-missile system, but also the power systems and electronic equipment in the location of the missile defense. It's all about electronic devices. There is a series of Iranian missiles, which is equipped with electromagnetic impulse warheads capable of creating a destructive blast wave. It will also destroy all electronic devices - right at the moment when the missiles will be knocked down by the “dome” antimissiles. Tel Aviv plunges into darkness. The military will have time to understand what happened, but they will not be able to do anything: "... the city will be turned into rubble in minutes, if rockets appear again over Tel Aviv." And they, of course, will appear ... And then, by analogy, Iran will act "with other Israeli cities, NATO bases in Turkey, and dozens of US military bases around Iran ..."

Here Higgins seems to have reached the scenario of a third world war. So far, probably not even in Israel.

4. Mine torpedoes. They will disable the US fleet, and then Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz.

"Understanding the impossibility of resisting the power of the US Navy, as well as the fact that ground-based rocket launchers could be attacked from the air, the Iranians spent years building secret tunnels and underground bases." That is, the Iranians, according to Higgins, acted approximately like the characters of A. Green's novel “The Road to Nowhere”.

The tunnels, reports Higgins, were dug to the underwater launch pits along the coastline. From there you can mine and make rocket shots without risking being seen by the enemy.

The rockets will be shot down, the “dome” destroyed, there will be darkness all around, and then the American fleet will undergo a torpedo attack. For American commanders, the blogger asserts, “it will be a surprise whence these missiles come from.” (In vain Higgins gave the Americans an Iranian secret). Having neutralized the military threat, Iran, according to Higgins, will use hundreds of sea mines in the gulf and will block the Strait of Hormuz.

5. And then Iran will disable the oil pipelines of Saudi Arabia. Suad oil storage tanks Iran will also destroy.

At this point his Iranian plan A. Higgins predicts a new price for oil - 400 dollars and higher per barrel. (The analyst forgets to say about the growth of GDP in Russia). But all this is trifles, because the main thing is not the price, but the very presence of oil, which, evidently, money cannot be bought at all ... “Soon after, large-scale hyperinflation,” says Higgins passionately, “will cover the markets, and the dollar will almost stop it will cost as countries around the world begin to realize that two thirds of the global oil supply has just been thrown out of the equation. ”

It is up to the oppositionists and revolutionaries of all stripes and shades. And what remains in the world of fuel, the military will quickly devour their equipment.

6. The plot on the ancient Greek theme: "Trojan horses" of Iranian production.

This picture plot is absolutely fantastic. According to the author, in preparation for war, Iran will begin to intensively deploy the whole “armada” of Trojan horses around the world. What kind of horses are these? Not those fastidious about whom Vysotsky sang. These are tankers owned by some Iranian network of oil and transport companies. (I don’t know how quickly you can arrange such a “network of companies” around the world. Especially with the system of sanctions against Iran). Hundreds of oil tankers, Higgins writes, will be secretly equipped with explosives and monitored via satellite. At the right moment, these huge tankers, stationed in western ports and full of oil, will begin to explode, "disabling key ports needed to service commercial and military supply lines."

At the same time, other cargo tankers - another type of Trojan horses - will begin to imitate the Somali pirates and attack cargo ships "around the world." And the very Armageddon is here: “Even more sinister is the secret that lies deep under the oil of 55-gallon Iranian barrels - explosives and detonators. By the time the war breaks out, barrels filled with explosives full of oil will spread around the world. When Iran "presses the button," tens of thousands of factories, warehouses and arsenals around the world will disappear in clouds of smoke. "

I wonder who would destroy Iran in this way? Maybe China? India? At the time of the sanctions, the number of buyers of these very 55-gallon barrels was significantly reduced. Iran himself reduced them with his counter-sanctions.

7. It is clear that without a cyber war in the script is not enough. “Sleeping superviruses will be set free in an apocalyptic cyber attack,” is how stylish the author writes. According to him, if the United States and Israel infected computer systems around the world with the Staxnet virus, Iran changed the code and rewrote the virus, so as to target the infrastructure of the United States and other developed countries. While the virus is sleeping. But, as soon as the attack on Iran occurs, the modified Staxnet 2.0 activates and renders the entire US energy supply system inoperable, i.e., it will send the country to the Stone Age. And then ... Then Iran will unveil a number of vulnerabilities in American cyber security systems that its intelligence has been finding for many years, "and within a few hours a global network of hundreds of thousands of hackers would disable the nuclear facilities, the entire US power supply system, US satellites and other systems that ensure the daily lives of citizens. "

Probably, there are already hundreds of thousands of hackers in the world who, by a single order, are ready to oppose the United States. The whole electronic army.

8. Here some "sleeping agents" come into play.

Iran will create (or has already created?) In Mexico “a complex smuggling network weapons". Hezbollah is used to penetrate Mexican drug cartels. After the attack on Iran, Iran’s special agents in Mexico will postpone their petty affairs and launch attacks along the Mexican border. The cartels will gladly provide their fighters, the blogger notes, because the unstable situation facilitates drug trafficking. And cocaine profits will increase. The fighters from drug cartels and agents will start fighting well so that “the destruction of a number of targets at the border will bring the entire territory under the control of drug cartels and Iranian agents of Hezbollah.” In short, the entire border between Mexico and the United States "will turn into an uncontrolled combat zone." This is how far the punishing hand of Iran is.

9. Muslim vector.

Muslims who have long been dissatisfied with the United States, among them extremists who "sympathize with Iran, Palestine and other Islamic countries that have become the target of the United States in the war on terror", will launch attacks on key civilian infrastructure in America: railroads, railway stations, bridges, "flooded places" etc. And not only in America, the orgy of attacks will begin, but also in the countries-allies of the world hegemon, including NATO.

10. Here, the blogger logically proceeds to the scenario of the Third World War: “... China, Russia and India that smelled of blood are becoming more active ...” In addition, “hundreds of thousands of Russian and Chinese sleeping agents” will rise within the United States. And after the agents' awakening, the intelligent Chinese "will activate the switches that they have incorporated into all American and civilian military computers and electronic devices, and the US Army is quickly aware" of what is made in USA.

Russia will take the example of Iran and launch impulse missiles on the NATO missile system, making it useless. Then the Russian Federation will deploy its army and air force to attack Eastern Europe and Afghanistan. At the same time, she will join China in his campaign of cyber attacks and the destruction of American satellites. And then for some reason, hackers use the newly modified - already Chinese - Staxnet (version 3.0) in order to blow up nuclear missiles all over the world (by means of self-exploding).

Virus version 3.0, of course, a serious thing, but why should Chinese hackers arrange the end of the world? ..

Ii. Who is worse: Iran or Israel?

Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, referring to the arguments of authoritative Paul Pillar, argues on the subject of how dangerous would be Iran, which owns nuclear weapons. Pincus, or, more precisely, Pillar, comes to the conclusion: no more dangerous than the present-day Iran, because the present-day Iran is not ruled by fools. Let's see what evidence Pillar leads in evidence in favor of his geopolitical theory of a peaceful Iran.

Paul Pillar is a former senior CIA analyst and state intelligence officer in the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, who retired. Pillar is currently lecturing at Georgetown University. He had previously participated in events when the CIA had doubts about the weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration had ignored.

In one of the issues of the Washington Monthly magazine, Pillar spoke on the Iranian topic: “Iran with an atomic bomb will not be as dangerous as it is now believed, but a war to try to prevent it from getting this bomb will be less successful and much more expensive than many imagine. "

A common opinion, says Pillar, is that the Tehran leaders, having acquired nuclear weapons, will become dangerous for their neighbors and the United States. Many leaders of Iran unjustly call “religious fanatics who value martyrdom more than life”; they allegedly "act irrationally, and therefore they cannot be restrained." Pillar's argument: "... the last 30 years have shown that, although they have encouraged martyrdom to protect their country, they have never shown a desire to become these martyrs themselves."

Iranian leaders have no reason, according to Pillar, to lose control over nuclear weapons. Tehran will use nuclear weapons only for self-defense.

Pillar also asks why any attack by Israel or the United States against Iran — with the goal of ending its nuclear program — is considered the “best choice” of the scenario, but the “worst option” is certainly the one where Iran gets the atomic bomb. Whether the armed attack of Israel or the United States was analyzed taking into account the “worst case” scenario, Pillar writes, “we would have heard of a grandiose regional conflict involving numerous American allies, after the first strike pulling enormous forces from the United States.”

By the way, according to Pillar, even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, "Israel will retain an overwhelming military superiority with its nuclear arsenal, which, according to international estimates, has at least 100, and, possibly, 200 warheads."

Thus, Pillar gently hints that nuclear Israel and US nuclear, colorfully writing out the “worst scenario”, forget that they themselves could be the perpetrators of a completely different worst scenario.

And it cannot be said that some of the consequences of this contemplating “worst scenario” (for the time being - economic) are already felt by the Israelis today.

Iii. Tons of ink against gallons of gasoline

Eyal Horowitz in the Israeli edition of Maariv пишет: “Tons of ink were spent on analytical predictions and the creation of apocalyptic scenarios of developments related to the Iranian atomic problem. Numerous observers and experts are trying to anticipate a situation in which Ahmadinejad will order an Israeli bombing. But no one has yet assumed that the Iranian threat is not a question of the future, but what is happening to us now. ”

The phrase “Iranian threat” here has an ironic meaning.

The author sees this "threat" in the prices at gas stations. “And the more pressure on Iran will increase, the higher the price of fuel will become,” writes Eyal Horowitz. - But this is only the beginning. Imagine a situation in which Iran completely stops supplying oil to all countries of the world or supplies this product exclusively to Arab countries. ”

The next stage in the development of negative events is the withdrawal of investors from the Israeli market. You never know: after all, war can begin ... Transactions are canceled, investors abandon their previous plans ... “The Iranian crisis,” the author notes, “seems to me much more complicated than it seems at first glance. On the one hand, the methods of pressure on Iran seem vital in order to prevent further development of Tehran’s nuclear project. On the other hand, the use of these methods is fraught with danger, which can be much greater than the Iranian atom. ”

Conclusion: Yes, Israel is obliged to make efforts to prevent Tehran from creating nuclear weapons, but it does not need to behave in the manner of a hysterical woman. Hysteria can cost the country expensive. By “expensive,” the author means not at all the Iranian atomic bomb dropped on Israel, but an economic catastrophe caused by a shortage or high cost of energy.

And this is true. Not without reason, Iran successfully applies oil counter-sanctions, which have made noise and even raised a slight panic in the European Union.

In addition, the US has repeatedly told Israel that they are not ready to fight with Iran, and Israel alone, even with anti-bunker bombs, but without allies, will never decide to attack Iran.

America, criticizing Iran and applying “sanctions”, cooperates with Iran in practice. This is not a joke and, I hope, not a “duck” - that is, not propaganda.

Reza Sajjadi, Iranian Ambassador to Russia, the other day wrote in your blog:

"My dear friends,

Did you know that America’s exports to Iran increased by 2010% compared to 2011 in the year of 10?

And this is in conditions when America declares that it imposes sanctions on any country or company that cooperates with Iran! In the 2011, the New York Times article reported that America is the biggest violator of sanctions against Iran.

During the attack of Saddam Hussein, Iran was under the influence of Western sanctions on arms supplies. In 1986, America sent Macfarlane to Iran on an airplane full of weapons. Later this political scandal became known as Irangate (like Nixon's Watergate).

This behavior of America means that some important markets should be reserved for America - and only for it alone. And there America has the right to work under any conditions, while others are not allowed. And therefore I wouldn’t be too surprised if someone tells me that they have seen Patriot air defense systems in Iran — installed and ready to go! ”

“Patriot” is not “Patriot”, but it’s not necessary to be surprised that an American stealth drone appeared in Iran (no matter how it appeared). As for Washington’s requests to Tel Aviv to postpone the war with Tehran, everything is simple: in crisis America they began to realize that trading is more profitable than fighting and imposing sanctions. Soon it will be understood in the European Union, exhausted by economic problems.

Observed Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru

Comments

[esaul]

I am adding an article because, in addition to the fact that Oleg provided an interesting version of the possible outcome of a possible conflict, he accompanied this version with his competent comments.
As for the very appearance of such assumptions, the author of the article is a plus for the fact that by showing the states a goat on behalf of Iran, he is trying to reduce the warlike ardor of the states and prevent carnage. Well, as for - "Who will fill up whom", there are many pros and cons.

[YARY]

Good afternoon Valery!
Also, plus, for causticity with accents!
"Oilmen" have already turned on the "back", but one thing for the "detour", and another for the drape! It seems to me that soon their crush on Iran will start tending to zero .. Or we will have the first act of the drama, in which we will have to participate.

[755962]

Quote: Ardent

"Oil workers" have already turned on the "back"

Many believe that in the long run, Iran will nevertheless become a nuclear power. In America, there are already groups of researchers and analysts who pose the question not “How to prevent?”, But “How to live together?”: How to live on, what kind of policy of containment, pressure or involvement, when Iran will be a regional nuclear power. There are different ideas regarding this. Including, in a sense, it will even become a stabilizing factor, but just then the United States will be obliged to give nuclear guarantees to Saudi Arabia and other countries that Iran fears. Israel, of course, does not need them, because it has its own nuclear weapons. But it will be a very difficult demise for America to admit that they can do nothing with Iran’s nuclear weapons. How it will pass is not clear. I think that then they will blame Russia and China very actively: “If it weren’t for them, we would, of course, have solved this issue, but, unfortunately, they are against it, and we still will not take decisive steps to bypass the UN we can, we already have bad experience. ”

[Yarbay]

Eugene good evening!
If Iran takes possession of nuclear weapons, then the world will change!
You are right that Israel, who does not want to lose its exclusiveness in the possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is most worried!
Then many countries will also actively work on obtaining nuclear weapons, having the reason for owning Iran as a potential adversary, mainly the Arab countries of the United States!
As for the scrapping, I would argue what kind of scrapping occurred in the United States after the news of the possession of nuclear weapons in North Korea ??
But I think the question is still not entirely in nuclear weapons!
Here, many users deny the scientific and technical potential of modern Iran and obvious breakthroughs in this direction, but believe that they can create nuclear weapons!
I think the question is this, as user Alex America and Israel simply want to push Iran 50 years ago!

[755962]

Quote: Yarbay

news of possession of nuclear weapons North Korea?

Greetings, Alibek! The fact of the matter is that Korea has nothing besides nuclear weapons! Well, you understand me They (Americans) "worry" about those who still have their own views on life and "black gold". This is the key question. All others follow from it.

[Yarbay]

Eugene!
Vague doubts torment me!
More and more I'm leaning towards a religious factor!
Look why not North Korea, especially since they have no means of delivery for this nuclear weapon !!
then Venezuela? doesn’t it have oil ??
in the end Cuba ??
What do you think?

[755962]

Americans, when it comes to oil, become godless.

[sanych your division]

chess with the capture of Iran, the USA takes the center of the Eurasia board and this game is against us

[sanych your division]

they are worried about those who have not yet squeezed out something there urgently needs to raise democracy

[Dmitriy69]

Yes, the script is painted too optimistic. The whole point of writing such predictions is an attempt to sow doubt about the impunity of the blow and gain time. While the Pentagon is analyzing these threats (and for expensive), there is time (for very cheap) to compose new ones. In short, it's nice to deal with a shy appan

[vpm]

"No plan survives first contact with the enemy." / Moltke
No matter how many Americans and Israelis try to convince themselves of their absolute military superiority, the war with Iran will go according to a very poorly predictable scenario. They spend tons of ink on predicting possible scenarios, although after the escalation of the conflict they all will not cost the paper on which they are written.
The situation is complicated by the fact that Iran cannot be considered in isolation - if in the case of Iraq or Libya the conflicts did not develop into regional conflicts, then in the case of Iran this will happen. They will hit Iran and get a regional (at least) war. As for the ability to unlock the Strait of Hormuz - they can probably do it. But this is not the main question, the main question: how fast? Even hints of the blockade affect oil prices, what can we say about the actual blockade that will raise oil prices much more strongly. If the blockade lasts at least a couple of months (even partial), the economy of both the USA and Europe will be in ruins.
So with Iran, I would like to and would be pricked by probable friends, because Iran can make the price of such an adventure unacceptable to the United States and its allies. And if we add the factors of China and Russia to this, then forecasting something is generally useless.

[teves]

Who is Higgins blogger and why is he quoted on the site? I advise him not to smoke any nasty things before writing his creations. Although I still copy his theses and when the war breaks out: SIMPLY TAKE AND COMPARED WITH REALITY! After all, it was like that back in 1991 - when the Soviet still woe-marshalls with foam from the mouth tried to prove to the whole civilized world the possible defeat of the United States in Iraq .. so what did everyone finally see? Torn unobtrusively and elegantly Who will remember those "Marshalls" now?

[vpm]

Have you heard about ad hominem? It is much easier to focus on the personality of the writer than on his arguments, especially in the absence of his own. Who is Higgins doesn’t matter at all, the important thing is that Iran is not Iraq, and even if the blogger has exaggerated somewhere, that’s not the point. The bottom line is that the scale of the war with Iran will go far beyond the scope of the Iraqi or Libyan campaigns. Moods like the Americans at times carving out Iran like a nut just show that in the West there are hat-takers who will be very far from the conflict while the soldiers will eat dust and die because someone really wanted to get into another gamble.
Military strategists, however, unlike all sorts of idiots, are well aware of the problem:
http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291329719640.pdf
http://www.inegma.com/reports/special%20report%204/Iranian%20Mining%20of%20the%2
0Strait% 20of% 20Hormuz.pdf
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/mills-2008.pdf
Although ultimately apparently not the military or intelligence will decide when the campaign begins, their opinion can simply be ignored as happened with Valerie Plame in the case of Iraq having WMDs.

[11Goor11]

Mr. teves,
I am a staunch opponent of war. But God forbid it happens ....
I will copy your statement, just in case.
If you later appear under the same nickname
and start advertising American power again,
there will be something to compare.

[Yarbay]

Andrew, I, too, like any sane person against the war!
But analyzing the situation, I see that it is inevitable!
Iran has no chance to win in the war!
America and its allies have the opportunity to achieve certain goals, but whether they can set the right goals for themselves, I don’t know!

[chukapabra]

Quote: vpm

No matter how many Americans and Israelis try to convince themselves of their absolute military superiority, the war with Iran will go according to a very poorly predictable scenario.

The infliction of irreparable damage to the enemy is also a victory, and for this it is not always necessary to occupy territory. Forces to bomb Iran, the United States will definitely have enough, enter the country in 17 bey, the rest will either fall apart on its own or will not recover for a long time

[vpm]

Bombing - bombing, and then? Iran has every chance of turning the American victory into a Pyrrhic one, when on the one hand Iran is in ruins, but the Americans will not get what they expect. Anyone who speaks about the unconditional victory of the Americans or consciously does not understand or underestimate Iran's position as a geopolitical player in the Middle East, its strategic control over the "bottleneck" of the Strait of Hormuz, a developed network of military and quasi-military networks in the same Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain. Neither Iraq nor Libya had this. Lord, even petty Libya (population 5 million versus 78 in Iran) with complete air supremacy took 11 months. What can we say about Iran - this is a war for many years if it starts. However, they want - let them climb, when gasoline in the states will cost under 10 bucks a gallon, the Americans will sing in a completely different way.

[Yarbay]

Greg You are right in many ways!
The fact is that let's say we changed the regime — this is possible only if the Shah’s Patomites are brought to power. But what will change?
He will not hold power without the help of the clergy, and the clergy in extreme cases will make temporary concessions !!
At the first economic or political crisis, the clergy will regain power!

[vpm]

This is in the "ideal" almost laboratory scenario, when the NATO military campaign will cause great dissatisfaction with the regime and the population, relatively speaking, will overthrow the regime of the mullahs and the IRGC.
But, the regime will be put on the brink of survival. The example of both Gaddafi and Hussein and Ba'ath clearly showed everyone the price of losing - reprisal and loss of power, and in the case of Gaddafi it is simply medieval, as is customary in the region. So the regime will fight to the last, they have no illusions regarding their future fate. Further, an example from both campaigns showed that air power alone could not be done, it would be necessary to organize a ground invasion to change the regime (and they set just such a goal, although in Libya they cost less rebel forces and special forces, it will be different here). The color revolution by and large in Iran failed, the same Stratfor recognized this. The war will be difficult and long, no matter who says it.
And yes, even if the regime is replaced and the successors of the shah are replaced, it will not last long - in Iran there is still a generation of people who remember the regime of the previous shah and the duplicity of the West, so that the population, with the exception of a small educated layer in large cities, will be for the current regime. Then, of course, fear and discontent will grow, but the same thing will happen in the West itself, which will understand the real price of war. Once again, the Iranian campaign will be much more complicated than Iraqi or Libyan. The Americans will not fight on their own, but they will put together a coalition that is already looming around Syria: Turkey, the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, France (possibly), Great Britain. On the other hand, Iran itself, Syria, agents of Iran’s influence in the region (Shiite minorities). The situation will be complicated even without the factor of Russia and China, and with it it is simply unreadable in advance.

[Geton]

Quote: vpm

Iran in ruins

. I think this is one of the goals of a future war.

[chukapabra]

Quote: esaul

Well, as for - "Who will fill up whom", there are many pros and cons.

Someone will fail, only a schoolboy can raise questions. Can anyone imagine that Iran will defeat America? Then everything is marshalling to the garden !!! The question is only about the number of losses incurred by America and the allies, but the fact that Iran will lose is clear. If America breaks in, then it will squeeze and it is unambiguous. So it was in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia. You can say anything, but they have brought down regimes that do not suit them and control them (maybe not 100%, but these countries control them). Therefore, the only question is the level of losses

[Darn]

Did America win in Vietnam and Korea?

[Ataturk]

Quote: Here Damn

Did America win in Vietnam and Korea?

Viet Nam kicked them to the fullest. They didn’t think enough. Ash for those who fought there end up with suicide. The roof went with them.

In Korea, they also got it.

[FREGATENKAPITAN]

So it may be so .....
Only now in Korea and Vietnam fought tens of thousands of Chinese , thousands of Soviet pilots, air defense personnel and other "specialists" .....
All weapons, MTOs, were Soviet or Chinese ...
So that everything is not so simple ......

[Cadet787]

Ataturk.
And in Iraq and Afghanistan, victory does not smell.

[chukapabra]

Quote: Here Damn

Did America win in Vietnam and Korea?

You still remember the king of peas, after that the army in America became not just different, it switched to professional equipment. In general, thinking with stereotypes 40 years ago is silly. Although one simple question for people like you (based on your theory of the past) Iran and Iraq have fought for 8 years and in general a draw, how long will Iran last if Iraq has been rescherated in 3 weeks?

[Darn]

switched to professional equipment.

Something I really doubt that non-professionals fought in Vietnam.

Iran and Iraq fought for 8 years

Iran, too, was not idle, if I’m not mistaken, the Israeli boat in Lebanon recently received a rocket sold by the Iranians and managed by the Iranians. So the Israelis said. Can they lie?

[chukapabra]

Quote: Here Damn

Something I really doubt that non-professionals fought in Vietnam.

here damn, what is not clearly written, after Vietnam, 40 years ago

In 1970, President Richard Nixon announced his intention to abandon the conscription system, and in 1974 there were no recruits in the US Armed Forces. It turned out to be relatively easy to create a fully professional army in the United States because during the Vietnam War more than half of all servicemen joined the army on a contractual rather than voluntary basis.

Quote: Here Damn

Iran also did not sit idly by,

Of course I did not sit, but the difference in level is probably clear even to the child

[KA]

I think it’s not so simple, you do not take into account the economic situation, if the United States could bomb Iran so easily, it would have bombed a long time ago!
Let me give you one example: in order to establish an unhindered passage for tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, it’s not enough just to remove minefields and you need to occupy a number of islands and the adjacent territory to the bay. The United States has about three months to do this, after which its strategic oil reserves will run out (although it may be enough for a longer period), but in any case it will be a severe blow to the US economy.

[chukapabra]

Quote: KA

I think it’s not so simple, you do not take into account the economic situation, if the United States could bomb Iran so easily, it would have bombed a long time ago

Well, yes, everything in the world is done so simply, and why Russia will not bomb Georgia? The people obviously want to interfere?

[Neighbor]

Quote: Here Damn

Did America win in Vietnam and Korea?

And in Afghanistan - what not to see strong success!
And then Iran - abruptly all of them combined will be! belay:

Quote: Ataturk

Viet Nam kicked them to the fullest. They didn’t think enough.

So what else - a BIG question - who is who! And what a PRICE!
McCain won’t offer - YU to inflict - and the case is over! If so, then yes! Toko consequences again - what will be? World War 3 begins - in which America - may even cease to exist.
So this is for you - Chukapabra - not to sit at the computer and ......... on .....!

Quote: chukapabra

here only a student can raise questions. Who can imagine that Iran will defeat America? Then all marshalling into the garden

There was a genius! I can imagine! - that Amer - generally crap on Iran to attack. And this is already the VICTORY OF IRAN !!!

Quote: chukapabra

Therefore, the only question is the level of losses

And if the level of losses will be even 51%? What then? After a dozen years - COSTS for the war will pay off at the Amer? AND? Or do you think they are fighting for the idea, and not for the sake of $? And you are so sure of the courage of the Amer mercenaries! Confident of the superiority of Amer’s technique?
Well then - Ugh on you !!!

[chukapabra]

Quote: Neighbor

I can imagine! - that Amer - generally crap on Iran to attack. And this is already the VICTORY OF IRAN !!!

Well then, consider that the USSR won the Cold War, America didn’t attack the same. And there are at least 200 countries that it didn’t attack, so you can assume that they defeated it?

Quote: Neighbor

And if the level of losses will be even 51%? What then? After a dozen years - COSTS for the war will pay off at the Amer?

The war does not always pay off; in Afghanistan they swelled more than they took out and? It is necessary to think in vain. There Libya, with might and main oil began to swing to the west (paid attention prices went down). It’s generally quiet there, and there were almost 10 years of forecasts for the war.
It’s only in Russia, it’s loot now, and then the grass does not grow, look into the future.

[Alexander Romanov]

As for the hundreds of thousands of Russians in America, the author has bent. Many of them are no longer Russian.

[Dmitriy69]

Quote: Alexander Romanov

Many of them are no longer Russian.

Yes, and many of those remaining are such that I can’t make myself feel sorry for them.

[Alexander Romanov]

Dmitry, and who pity them? They’ll show you some beast, I just want to run a stool on the TV

[Dmitriy69]

Quote: Alexander Romanov

They will show some kind of beast, I just want to run a stool on the TV

Not Nada !!!!!!!!!!
A stool and a TV set, even individually, are more expensive than his head!

[Alexander Romanov]

Dmitry agrees, to a plus

[YARY]

I have a friendship in New York, a taxi driver. He's retiring soon.
I asked him what he would do if the "oilmen" trample on us?
He said, I will take with me as much as I can, but how it is not for common ears.
So OURS are there, but a little pancake!

[Tirpitz]

Militarily, no article. In all the rest +. If necessary, the first missiles with an electromagnetic pulse will fly just in the direction of Iran. If you wish from Iran, only the name will remain. But only there is no such desire, and this is written in the article very accurately. For trading is better than fighting.

[Yarbay]

Oleg Chuvakin, of course, plus for the article, for what I was looking for, read and acquainted us with interesting opinions!
Iran’s biggest weapon is FAITH and Ayatollahs!
Ayatollahs are not beardless upstarts, but people for decades studying Islam and literate people!
A Muslim who professes Shiite Islam must necessarily have a mustehid, that is, a teacher! A great ayatollah can be a mudechid!
Every Muslim, if he doesn’t understand something in Islam or has questions, should ask his husband’s husband and he answers his blog with his knowledge and on controversial issues makes his fatwa verdict !!
Fatawa ayatola can be rejoiced in events!
So, any fatwa of the male husband is required to be fulfilled by a Muslim until he is refuted on a scientific basis or with the explanation of another male husband!
And ayatollahs enjoy an undeniable authority because they are very ascetic and educated!
And Shiites all over the world and mainly their husband-the-tehids, the great Ayatollah Sistani lives in the Iraqi city of Najef and Khamenei!
Therefore, if they declare war, millions will go for them!

[Ataturk]

Dear Yarbai, I do not consider Ayatollah educated. I have listened to their sermon more than once, you know, in some moments they bend.
If you want to know the truth about Islam, you need to read and not go to them.
The Shiite direction is blasphemy. They believe in Imam Ali, bow to him. And this is the main prohibition of Islam. There is no Deity except Allah, and all the rest are his slaves. And he says that if a person has a request to Allah, then he goes to pray to the Imam, and takes him to mediators to bring his words to God.

In short, I do not share the opinion of the Shiites.

I am already silent about their prayer.

[Yarbay]

My dear brother Omar!
In Islam, there is no concept of a Shiite direction and they do not recognize this, that is, the division into Shiites and Sunnis!
I wrote Shiites to make it clear to others!
I don’t agree with you on this issue, I have been studying Islam since childhood and no matter how much I read, there are always Wahhabis and they blow themselves up because they also think that after reading a couple of books and hadiths of the prophet they know everything about Islam!
They believe in Allah, not in Ali! And you are mistaken about prayers to the imam! These are widespread fabrications about them!
I deeply respect their knowledge, but I do not perceive politics!
My brother Omar, I gave information here about them and I'm not going to argue with anyone about their merits!
If you want in private discuss!
We can meet for a cup of tea)))))))))

[Ataturk]

My dear, I'm just very busy. I talk with one person, correspond with another, and it’s hard for me to write .... I also read and not a few. Believe me. But better close this topic. Just not for nothing 80 in the world of Muslims, it's Sunni.

Better close the topic.

[Ataturk]

Quote: Yarbay

My brother Omar, I gave information here about them and I'm not going to argue with anyone about their merits!
If you want in private discuss!
We can meet for a cup of tea)))))))))

We’ll meet for a cup of tea and drink tea and chat.
Dear Yarbai, modern malls, muftis and imams, not all but many are charlatans. They distort the truth. They do a lot of things in the name of God.
About 12 years ago I was in a mosque. Friday was. I listened to the sermon. In short, how he started talking about infidels, about ignoramuses and so on, I got up and asked.

answer me my questions.
1) If a person, an aborigine and religion has not reached him, where will he go to heaven or hell?
2) If a person is a Christian, but BELIEVES IN ONE GOD, lives as a decent person, a good father, a good husband, a good brother, helps the poor, what can a decent person do in one word, where will he get after death?
3) What is the difference between a person who prays in a mosque and then commits sins, and one who was born in a Muslim family does not pray, but believes in God, recognizes him, where will he go after death?

He started talking to me such nonsense, I got up and left.
Yarbai, my dear, I believe in the one who created this world, who breathed life into this world. I believe in Moyasey, I believe in Jesus and Mohamed. They are holy people to me, at least because they repeated the word of GOD on earth.

All 3 books are sacred in that how a person should live. How to behave. But I also believe in one thing, that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. So all relatives are to each other at the genetic level. We are all humans. I do not separate people.

And many priests and mullahs and others share them. It is not right. Religion should bring peace of mind, peace and not murder and violence.

Ayatollah of Iran, their main ayatollah, ethnic Azerbaijani, but he, bastard, instead of supporting us, he supports our enemies. Is this his Islamic solidarity?

And all the OIC countries supported us, except Iran. Even a few days ago, a new resolution was written.

And to some Iran, you see, the toad is crushing if Azerbaijan becomes a strong country. Armenians are better. Does their faith teach this?

Azerbaijan has never interfered in the affairs of its neighbors, especially Iran, but what are they doing? They run into us a little, they insult us, they ask, what do you care, who and what? Sit at home with your ayatols and DON'T CLICK.

I'll tell you one story.

My friend back in the days of the Georgian war, the road to Georgia through Turkey was closed.
In general, this man decided to go home via Iran by car. At customs, he gave 100 bucks to an Iranian customs officer. I’ve been waiting all day. The Armenian came, gave 10 bucks, but he immediately missed.

My friend said .... Brother, we are fellow believers, it seems to be neighbors and friends, I give 100 bucks and wait, and the Armenian immediately passed for $ 10.

WHAT THAT said. AHAAAA (smiling) is our policy. With sarcasm. My friend, a man with a hot head, to which he answered him, is nothing ... soon you will see our policy when the Americans and Israelis bomb you from Azerbaijan. Padlaaa. He was immediately seized and with the help of the ambassador he was hardly pulled out.

This is their policy.

Ayatollah says, if I want to turn to Allah, then I need a mediator. I pray to the Imam Raz or whatever it is that he will convey my words to Allah. What kind of nonsense?

Further, Allah does not allow self-sacrifice after Ibrahim. God created a ram to sacrifice rams. After the incident, when Ibrahim’s father wanted to cut his son’s head for the sake of Allah. Do you remember?

They say that Shiites are those who stood up to the side of direct descendants and relatives of the Prophet Muhammad. A direct descendant of Muhammad, this is the king of Jordan and Morocco. Again a hoax.

About the prayer. If you are in the saddle, driving, even eating, walking or running, you are allowed to pray. What are Shiites doing? MAY 3 days not pray and then collect the penalties and pray. What kind of horror?

In short, I am far from their Islamic direction.

[Murai]

Who are Shiites? (short)
Shiites are an Islamic sect with a long history. Shiism arose a very long time ago, but at first the differences with the Sunnis (that is, with those on the true path) were purely political. The first question that Muslims parted with is the power, or rather, the principles of the inheritance of power from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
After the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), his companion Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, was elected a caliph. It was decided so, because the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, pointed out his God-fear during his lifetime: he, may Allah bless him and greet him, always placed Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, in prayer with the imam when he was ill .
What is the wisdom that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not indicate a certain person with the words: “This person should be the ruler after me”?
The wisdom is that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him, pointed out to Muslims that the ruler of Muslims is an elected position. The Shiites, however, considered that after the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and bless him, the ruler should have been an associate of Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and then the descendants of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and bless him. So they broke away from most Muslims (and subsequently almost all Shiites showed a clear dislike for some of their associates, for example, the first three righteous caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman, may Allah be pleased with them).
At first, there were differences only in the issue of power, but then, on the basis of political views, deviations appeared in creed.
However, in fact, Shiism is refuted quite simply. We give a simple example. If you ask them: “Imam Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, sinless?” - they will answer: “Yes, he is sinless!” Next, you need to ask: "And the community that swore to Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, fell into sin?" - and they will answer: "Yes, I fell into sin!" Question: “But Imam Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, also swore to Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, which means he also committed a sin?” That’s the whole theory ...
Nevertheless, Shiism turned out to be a very tenacious sect, their delusions grew, their beliefs formed a complex system. Shiites have their own books, their Islamic law (different from Sunni law), their scholars, their offshoots.
Although at first it is very interesting for Muslims to study different directions in Islam, it is better not to do this. Such research leaves such a black residue in the soul that a simple person, not a scientist, should not read Shiite books.

[Yarbay]

for me, as a Muslim, Sunni Shiite disputes haram !!


* Although at first it is very interesting for Muslims to study different directions in Islam, it is better not to do this. Such studies leave such a black residue in the soul that a simple person, not a scientist, should not read Shiite books. *
Here are the answers to your questions! *

Why be afraid to read books ???
Probably because it becomes clear white and black!

[Murai]

Why be afraid to read books ???
Probably because it becomes clear white and black!

SW Alibek before reading books about decomp. Those who have gone astray from the path of truth need to have at least minimal knowledge about true Islam, because he who does not know what is black and what is white cannot be discerned when he sees them. Indeed, in our time, young people get to Wahhabis only because they do not have true knowledge about Islam and their literature has been read. Then let's sell their literature in each store and not be afraid to read books. The same with other currents.
An ignoramus (jahil) is obliged to follow a scientist ('alim) and not get carried away by reading dangerous literature on his own, or let him enter an authoritative Islamic educational institution (madrasah) and gain knowledge there. Am I wrong :)

[chukapabra]

Quote: Yarbay

In Islam, there is no concept of a Shiite direction and they do not recognize this, that is, the division into Shiites and Sunnis!

Shiites (from Arabic; [sh'a] - "adherents, party, faction") - the direction of Islam, uniting various communities that recognized Ali ibn Abu Talib and his descendants as the only legitimate heirs and spiritual successors of the Prophet Muhammad [1]. In a narrow sense, the concept usually means Shiites-twenties ("Shiites-12"), the second largest number of adherents (after the Sunnis) in Islam, who recognize as the only legitimate successors of the Prophet Muhammad only Ali ibn Abu Talib and his descendants in the main line [ source not specified 69 days].
According to various estimates, Shiites make up from 10 to 20% of the total number of Muslims [2] [3] [4] [5].

Different trends in Islam,
I have to send you again to learn the materiel

Main article: Islamic movements
The first split among Muslims occurred in the middle of the 656th century as a result of a political struggle, when in 12, after the assassination of the third righteous caliph, Usman ibn Affan, the son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad Ali ibn Abu Talib was elected by the caliph. Suspecting involvement in the assassination of caliph Usman by caliph Ali, the Syrian governor Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan refused to swear allegiance to him, resulting in the battle of Suffin. During the Battle of Siffin, when the forces of Mu'awiyah were running out, he went on a trick, forcing Ali ibn Abu Talib to stop the battle and begin peace negotiations. Ali's indecision caused outrage among his supporters and 43 thousand wars left Ali's army, subsequently settling in Iraq. The warriors who left Ali after the Battle of Siffin were called the Kharijites (from the Arabic, speaking, leaving) [XNUMX]
In 661, the righteous caliph Ali ibn Abu Taliba was mortally wounded by the Kharijit Ibn Muljam, after which the majority of Muslims recognized Mu'awiyah as the caliph, but some of the Muslims remained loyal to Ali and considered that power in the Caliphate should belong to his descendants. Thus, Muslims were divided into Sunnis (Arabic - ahlu-Sunnat wa-l-jama'ah), who recognized the legitimate power of Mu'awiyah and the Umayyad dynasty, into Shiites (Arabic - Shi'a), who still believe that power is in the Caliphate should belong only to the descendants of Ali (Alidam) and Kharijites, who did not join any of the groups.
Sunnis
Today, the Sunnis represent the vast majority of Muslims (about 85%) and are represented in most Islamic countries (countries of the Middle East, North Africa, Central and South Asia, etc.). The main distinguishing feature of the Sunnis is their adherence in legal matters to one of the four universally recognized Sunni law schools (fiqh madhhabs) and adherence to the beliefs of the Asarite, Asharite, or Maturdite schools (Akhab madhhab). Sunnis also include Salafists (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE) and Sufis.
Shiites
Shiites make up the second largest group of Muslims (about 15%) and are traditionally divided into moderate Shiite twenties (Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iraq and Lebanon) and Zeidites (Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq), as well as extreme Shiites Ismailis, Alawites (Syria, Turkey, Lebanon), Alevites, etc.
Хaridzhits
The religious views of the Kharijites in many respects coincide with the views of the Sunnis, but the Kharijites recognize only the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar ibn Khattab, as legitimate, without recognizing Usman, Ali and everyone else (Umayyads, Abbasids, Alids, etc.). Among the Kharijites, such currents as ibadites, Ajradites, Azraqites, Baykhasites, Muhakkimites, Najditians, Saalabites, Sufrites, etc., formed, but most of them either disappeared or were represented in small groups. In the modern world, Kharijites are represented by Ibadites, who make up a large part of the population of Oman.
Other currents and sects
In addition to the three main Islamic movements, there are a number of movements, the belonging to Islam of which is called into question by Islamic scholars-theologians. These include aхMadieus, Druze, Bahá'ís, Nizari and etc..

[chukapabra]

Quote: Ataturk

The Shiite direction is blasphemy. They believe in Imam Ali, bow to him. And this is the main prohibition of Islam. There is no Deity except Allah, and all the rest are his slaves. And he says that if a person has a request to Allah, then he goes to pray to the Imam, and takes him to mediators to bring his words to God.

In short, I do not share the opinion of the Shiites.

I am already silent about their prayer.

Absolutely correct from the point of view of theology.

[chukapabra]

Quote: Yarbay

Ayatollahs are not beardless upstarts, but people for decades studying Islam and literate people!

Study religion and be educated different concepts, look at different theologians, a storehouse of obscurantism. And it concerns any religion.

Quote: Yarbay

A Muslim who professes Shiite Islam must necessarily have a mustehid, that is, a teacher! A great ayatollah can be a mudechid!

And what of it ? Increases wisdom at times?

Quote: Yarbay

So, any fatwa of the male husband is required to be fulfilled by a Muslim until he is refuted on a scientific basis or with the explanation of another male husband!

These fatwas all over the world are splashed with different imams, not overfilled. Each one is chosen which is more convenient. Over the centuries of Islam, their published simply countless.

Quote: Yarbay

And ayatollahs enjoy an undeniable authority
because they are very ascetic and educated!

Well, do not bend, look at the great Shiite Mufti of Iraq Al Sistani and his family - poverty and asceticism does not smell there

Quote: Yarbay

And Shiites all over the world and mainly their husband-the-tehids, the great Ayatollah Sistani lives in the Iraqi city of Najef and Khamenei!
Therefore, if they declare war, millions will go for them!

Let the Sunni Muslims first deal with 90% of the world. Why didn’t you mention that from the point of view of traditional Islam, Shiites are apostates and people who perverted Islam. because believing in addition to Muhammad and Ali (son-in-law of Muhammad and the 4th Imam) violating the main postulate of Islam - There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.
The biggest enemies of Iran are the Orthodox Sunnis, led by the Saud (therefore in the same Iraq or Iran) such a large number of terrorist attacks against the Shiites organized by al-Qaida (Orthodox Sunnis) they do not consider Shiites to be co-religionists <but on the contrary, they are schismatics. So I hurried about millions. In addition to Iran, less Iraq, a little Lebanon, Bahrain, Azerbaijan (which is even ridiculous from the point of view of armament speaking on the side of Iran, as in general and the communities of other countries, maybe with the exception of Lebanon), no one will support Iran.
Learn religion young man.

[Yarbay]

I'm not going to argue with you about what you do not understand and have superficial knowledge !!
And the one who considers whom Muslims and who are not, do not say nonsense!
I traveled half the world and everywhere they hugged me like a Muslim, regardless of their views!
Enhances knowledge, not wisdom!
I say Ayatollahs are very educated and they are not stamped as you say as imams !!
This is a * piece * !!
As for the Saudis, these are not Orthodox Sunnis, but real Wahhabis!
and all over the world wherever I am Sunni and Shiites treat each other with respect !!
millions of Shiites live in the countries you have listed))) so I was in no hurry)))) and hundreds of thousands of Shiites live in other countries !!

About Sistan do not say nonsense !!
many ayatollahs have great money, but spend on the poor!
You will not see their extra purchases and luxury!
I have been to Sistani, where he lives and in those conditions you couldn’t just sit for an hour!
Such as you and cultivate Wahhabis))

That you teach someone else a young man !!))

[chukapabra]

Quote: Yarbay

I'm not going to argue with you about what you do not understand and have superficial knowledge !!

I don’t even know what to answer, probably about to teach mom how to cook cabbage soup, it will be very not tactful. But I live in a country where everything is so close and close, I’m not saying that I’m still fond of it. So excuse my dear, but I have to send you to the garden.

Quote: Yarbay

I traveled half the world and everywhere they hugged me like a Muslim, regardless of their views!

Shiite-Sunni Fault
Unsurprisingly, when asked "Is the Sunni-Shiite tension a purely Iraqi phenomenon or is it a deeper conflict in the Muslim world," the Lebanese answered unanimously. 95% consider it a global crisis. In the PA, Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan, the majority from 73% to 54% also see this as a global confrontation between the two versions of Islam.

AS SALAMU ALEIKUM! I am a Sunni living in a family of convinced Shiites, I want to note that my parents hate Sunnis and do not want to listen to more than one of my explanations, as soon as I open my mouth or bring them the hadiths and verses from the Qur'an they shut me up, they say that it is a Wahhabi Kuran , auzubillah (((it is believed that it was the Sunnis who killed their imams, and wish all the Sunnis death (((there is a brother who is in his family in the same position as me. a month ago his parents came to us to get married, a month later, Insha Allah we will be engaged. but we want to make nicknames in the next week. our parents will conclude us nicknames but in Shiite, without us. and we want to do it in the Sunnah. our parents will not agree to this ((they will make us nicknames in half a year or more when they want a wedding, of course we will do everything we can to prevent this wedding. I want to ask if we can now make a nickname so that my ooh will have an imam? After all, our parents already agree to our marriage if they want an engagement. My father shiit, he sometimes drinks he doesn’t do prayer and no thought, says I am sinless Allah has forgiven me all my sins ... PARENTS AGREE US TO DO NIKIKA BUT BECAUSE NOT ON THE SUN, AND WE WANT NOW
AND IF POSSIBLE, SAY CAN YOU DO ON THE PHONE? SO THIS BROTHER NOW IN THE ARMY IF IF IT CAN BE HAPPENING?

http://vitoz-m10.livejournal.com/484620.html

Sunnis never scold or insult Shiites! Sunnis sometimes point only to their mistakes and innovations, shirk. But Shiites do not just scold them, they hate Sunnis and constantly insult. I myself am a witness and I do not know at least one Shiite who would have a positive attitude towards the Sunnis. Maybe they have it out of envy that the Sunnis do not indulge in shirk and do not wear portraits of "Hazrat Ali", do not inflict cuts and wounds on themselves and their children in Ashura, do not light candles (I saw it myself) at the mosque, do not wear thick or fat gold chains and jewelry, etc.

The attitude of our Arabs towards Shiites, I know perfectly well - they use the word Shiite as an insult.
God forbid, I don’t want to insult Shiites or Sunnis, there’s everywhere, I’m just saying that there’s a concrete tension between them and that’s soft

As for the Saudis, these are not Orthodox Sunnis, but real Wahhabis!

The main dogma of Wahhabism is faith in an unconditionally one God (tawheed). The Wahhabis consider their main task the struggle to purify Islam from various alien, from their point of view, impurities based on cultural, ethnic, or some other features of certain Muslim peoples.
Wahhabis reject various, from their point of view, innovations (bid'a), not permitted by Islam. Salafis deny the possibility of "mediation" between Allah and man.

Well, the fact that the Wahhabis are Sunnis, I hope even you understand, faith in pure Islam - if this is not an orthodox course, what?

In a broad sense orthodoxy they call a religious or philosophical position, which is believed to be exactly in accordance with the literal and initial understanding of a particular teaching. In such cases, they speak of Orthodox Judaism, Islam, various areas of Buddhism, Lutheranism, Marxism; the orthodoxy of some Christian faiths has been developed to one degree or another

learn materiel

Quote: Yarbay

Like you and grow Wahhabis)

I’m generally a Jew, and therefore I can’t cultivate Wahhabis a priori. This is for your Saudi co-religionists.

[Yarbay]

who cleansed the so-called pure Wahhabi Islam?))))))
You are a provocateur and have no idea about Islam !!
Here you are a Jew and therefore you are raising Wahhabis)))))
Therefore, write a young man about what you know))))))))
Jew, I don’t teach you the Talmud !!)))
and you don’t teach me what you don’t know !!))

[chukapabra]

Quote: Yarbay

Jew, I don’t teach you the Talmud !!)))

Because you don’t know

Quote: Yarbay

and you don’t teach me what you don’t know !!))

But I don’t teach you, just your scientific and theological delights have nothing to do not only with the scientific interpretation (you read my links from the encyclopedias), but also with the reality. Therefore, it reflects only your personal opinion not supported by any reliable sources

Quote: Yarbay

Here you are a Jew, and therefore you are a Wahhabi

These are your arguments, except for a children's grin, they can not cause anything. To the Papuans please, there are still many tribes that have not been spudded left, you can hang noodles on their ears.

[Murai]

The Wahhabis consider the struggle for the purification of Islam from various aliens to be their main task from their point of view, impurities based on cultural, ethnic or some other features of certain Muslim peoples.

They answered themselves.
I would discuss it with you, but whether it will be useful, time is very expensive.
Want to read at your leisure
http://www.islamdag.ru/book/2394

Wahhabism carries terrible beliefs that are not inherent in Islam.
I. The most serious deviations:

1. Wahhabis believe that Allah is His Essence above (in heaven, in heaven, on the Throne (Al-Arsh, Arsh), above the Throne).
2. Wahhabis believe that Allah has organs (hands, lower leg, eyes, and so on).
3. Wahhabis believe that Allah moves His Essence every night to the first heaven.
I want to note that if after reading these points some people start saying that I am going against the Koran and the Sunnah or denying the Ayatas and Hadiths, then you know that the Wahhabi is talking with you. One must understand that his goal is to protect Wahhabism. As for the evidence, then on this site (http://darulfikr.ru) only the lazy will not find them, which allows us not to dwell on this aspect.

II. Wahhabis say you cannot follow one madhhab. There are several options. From the most ignorant to the less ignorant.
1.1. The extreme ones say that madhhabs are not needed at all, but it is enough to turn to the primary sources.
1.2. Others say that madhhabs are needed, but still you need to look only at the primary sources.
1.3. Still others say that madhhabs are needed, but all their conclusions must be checked.
1.4. The fourth say that we need to take the most widespread opinion among them or which was suggested by a Wahhabi scholar.
1.5. The most sophisticated assure that you can take any opinion from 4 madhhabs at any time and in any situation without rules and regulations, and when you want, then the opinion of Wahhabi scholars.
1.6. The most cunning of them pretend that they follow the madhhab, but at the same time disseminate the information from point I, since this is more important for them.

III. Wahhabis deny Sufism as a science aimed at eradicating bad qualities.
With your permission, I will not disclose this paragraph. Firstly, because the first two are the most important, and you can usually say: “Wahhabi or not Wahhabi.” Secondly, on this site (http://darulfikr.ru) only the lazy will not find them, which allows us not to dwell on this aspect. It is important to note that not a single scholar called Sufism a delusion, but called a delusion things that were ascribed and ascribed to Sufism.

The question is not: "Who is Wahhabi and who is not." The question is in the desire to warn YOURSELF, YOU, OUR KIND, CLOSE from various kinds of delusions and diseases.

[Yarbay]

Joint Fatwa of the World Union of Islamic Scholars


The final document of the International Muslim Conference, held on July 4-6, 2005 in Amman (Jordan) under the motto "True Islam and its role in modern society"

In the name of Allah the Merciful and the Merciful! Blessing and peace to our lord Muhammad and his family! “Oh people! Fear your Lord, who made you out of one soul ... ”(Quran 4: 1).
In accordance with the fatwas (religious and theological conclusions) of the Supreme Imam Al-Azhar, the Mufti of Egypt, the Supreme Mufti of Oman, the Islamic Law Academy of Saudi Arabia, the Supreme Religious Council of Turkey, the Mufti and the Committee for Fatwas of Jordan, Shiite Maja (spiritual leaders) of the Ja'afarites and as well as Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi:
1. Anyone who is a follower of one of the four Sunni madhhabs (Hanafi, Malikite, Shafiite, Hanbalite), Shiite movements of Jafaria, Zayed, as well as Ibadiy and Zakhir, is considered a Muslim.
It is unacceptable to accuse him of unbelief, to encroach on his life, honor and property. In addition, it is forbidden to accuse adherents of asharism and those who practice true Sufism, continuing the traditions of their ancestors, in disbelief. In general, it is not permissible to classify atheists any group of Muslims who believe in Almighty Allah and His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!) Respect the tenets of religion, without rejecting any of them.
2. Among the various areas of Islam, there is much in common. Adherents of the eight movements follow the basic Islamic principles, believing in the One Most High Allah, the holy Quran (the revealed Word of Allah), and our lord Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him!), The Prophet of all mankind. They also adhere to the five pillars of Islam (confession of faith, prayer, alms, fasting in the month of Ramadan, Hajj), recognize the five pillars of faith (in Allah, in His angels, in His Message, in His prophets (peace be upon them all), on Judgment Day , in predestination).
The discrepancies between the ulama of these directions do not affect fundamental issues, but only particular ones. Moreover, the existence of differences in the views of the ulama is a positive phenomenon.
3. Possession of knowledge of Islamic movements implies the need to adhere to the fundamental methodology of theology. No one has the right to make decisions on religious issues without understanding the specifics of each of the areas of Islam. No one is allowed to engage in independent theological activities in one direction or another, without adequate training, or to proclaim the emergence of a new trend, and to publish fatwas that would take Muslims outside the rules and principles of the doctrine established by the Sharia.
4. The main idea of ​​the Amman message, adopted on the blessed night of Predestination in 1425 according to the Hijra and read out in the Hashemite mosque, is the admissibility of belonging to various streams and directions, recognition of their right to exist, recognition of the need for dialogue and interaction between their followers. This, in turn, implies a moderate approach, a search for mutual compromise, tolerance and condescension to each other, mercy and respect for the opinions of others.
5. We call for the settlement of disagreements among Muslims, the unity of their statements and positions, the consolidation of their mutual respect, the solidarity of their peoples and states, the strengthening of fraternal ties so that there is no reason for confusion and division between them.
Allah (praise be to Him) says: “Indeed, believers are brothers. Reconcile your brothers and fear Allah - maybe you will be merciful ”(Quran 49:10).
Glory be to Allah!

Does anyone know more than them?

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: Yarbay

all over the world wherever I am Sunni and Shiites respect each other !!

But in Iran Sunites are not allowed into mosques! (do not argue, I know what I'm writing and these are not isolated cases)

[Yarbay]

I do not argue!
I saw how there to pray in mosques and Sunnis and that's it !!
Shiites as well as Sunnis recognize the Sunnah of the prophet !!

[Murai]

Organized by El Qaida (Orthodox Sunnis)

Al Qaeda (Wahhabis) and Sunnis are both black and white.
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said my ummah (congregation) will be divided into 73 streams, 72 of them will go to hell and 1 will go to heaven, when he was asked who this is the saved group he answered, stick to the majority. At all times, the majority in Islam were Sunnis ~ 80%, and Wahhabis 2-3%.

[chukapabra]

Quote: Murai

Al Qaeda (Wahhabis) and Sunnis are both black and white.

Another unrecognized genius and interpreter of Islam, Wahhabis can only be Sunnis and no one else, it is an axiom(if you know what it is)

[Murai]

genius and interpreter of Islam

I don’t interpret Islam (I don’t pretend to be genius), but only quote major scholars of Islam and give links to my information, and you respected just speak on your own, show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls Wahhabis Sunnis (except for them, of course) You are our genius.

[chukapabra]

Quote: Murai

you respected just speak on your own, show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls the Wahhabis Sunnis (except for themselves, of course), you are our genius

Wahhabism (from Arabic) is a religious and political movement in Islam, which is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia, which was formed in the 1703th century. Wahhabism is named for Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab at-Tamimi (1792-1263), who is a follower of Ibn Taymiyah (1328-1). As a rule, supporters of his ideas call themselves Salafists [XNUMX].
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab believed that true Islam was practiced only by the first three generations of the followers of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Salyaf al-Salih), and protested against all subsequent innovations, considering them brought from outside by heresy.

Shiism, Harijism is heresy (from the point of view of the Sunnis)

Basic Postulates

Any political division of the Ummah (Islamic nation) or civil war is considered by the Wahhabis as fitnah (schismaticism, violation of Islamic unity). According to Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab, the very first fitnah occurred during the Caliphate Ali, when the Kharijites left him. Despite this, adherents of Wahhabism participated in armed conflicts several times in history and raised uprisings against other Muslims.
Strict adherence to the principle of tawhid;
Denial of innovations in religion (bid'a); division of the concept of innovation into linguistic and religious
Criticism of universal taclid (following any one madhhab (Islamic legal school of thought)).
Recognition of the understanding of salafs (“righteous ancestors”) as the only correct interpretation of the attributes and names of Allah (denial of allegory in such attributes as “yad” (hand), that is, the assertion that all attributes of Allah should be interpreted “as is” without allegory and without likening to the created).

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0
% BC

Wahhabis are adherents of Sunni Islam and no other. All Wahhabis are Sunnis - Russian is written in white, this is an action. Why should a WahhabitoB be recognized by the Sunnis as a priori, they are, as Shiite Wahhabis cannot be.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to voice here? Or to which of the 3 (main) movements in Islam do you attribute the Wahhabi trend?

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: chukapabra

Wahhabis are adherents of Sunni Islam and no other. All Wahhabis are Sunnis - Russian is written in white, this is an action. Why should a WahhabitoB be recognized by the Sunnis as a priori, they are, as Shiite Wahhabis cannot be.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to voice here? Or to which of the 3 (main) movements in Islam do you attribute the Wahhabi trend?

I don’t want to impose anyone’s opinion on you, it would be better if you yourself figured it out. You give reasons for some pundits, but there are others. Let me give you the simplest example. I was in a hajj in Mecca and in Medina, I saw a lot of new mosques (mainly Wahhabis) in my question. How are you different? they answered me- We (Sunnis) revere Ali the world to him as an imam, and do not see such great differences between Shiites and Sunites, and the Wahhabis deny the greatness of Ali, the world and Shiites consider him heretics!

[chukapabra]

Quote: SAMEDOV SULEYMAN

they answered me- We (Sunnis) revere Ali-peace to him as an imam, and do not see such great differences between Shiites and Sunnis

Dear Suleiman, for me it’s all the same Sunni or Shiite, you will understand each other. What you Shiite in my eyes neither makes you bad or bad, I do not know you.
But argue that n

we don’t see such big differences between Shiites and Sunnis

, I also live in a country with 20% of the Muslim population and communicate with Muslims every day.
I understand it is somewhat problematic when, in what you believe, 90% of co-religionists call heresy in the best case. But such is life, parents are not chosen and it is not worth refuting scientific truths. On the Internet and encyclopedias it is written enough about the difference, the reasons for hostility and rejection of each other Sunnis and Shiites and vice versa .. It’s enough to google, and we don’t talk about the level of neighbors when Shiite calmly gets along with Sunni. I’m talking about the global attitude, subconscious hostility and prejudices existing between the two currents.
Once again, do not take it personally, the argument is generally theological

[Murai]

Why Wahhabito, someone should recognize the Sunnis, they are a priori

Are not. A simple statement that I am not Sunni is enough, you need to follow the beliefs of the Sunnis and that they do not have it. A little higher gave a link, read it and do not rely on data from the network.
You contradict yourself, for example:

Sunnis
Today, the Sunnis represent the vast majority of Muslims (about 85%) and are represented in most Islamic countries (countries of the Middle East, North Africa, Central and South Asia, etc.). The main distinguishing feature of the Sunnis is their adherence in legal issues to one of the four universally recognized Sunni law schools (fiqh madhhabs) and adherence to the beliefs of the Asarite, Asharite or Maturdite school (Akhab madhhab).

And now you write:

Basic postulates (Wahhabis, (added from me))
Criticism of universal taclid (following any one madhhab (Islamic legal school of thought)).

First you affirm one then the other.

According to Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab

This dog is not my decree

show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls Wahhabis Sunnis

Did not answer this question.

Shiism, Harijism is heresy (from the point of view of the Sunnis)

I agree that these trends have gone astray.

[chukapabra]

Quote: Murai

show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls Wahhabis Sunnis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_3144000/3144272.stm
Who are Wahhabis?

Wahhabism - The doctrine that appeared in Islam relatively recently. This is a teaching within the framework of Sunnism. created in the middle of the XVIII century a religious figure in Saudi Arabia Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab.
The basis of Wahhabism is the idea of ​​monotheism. Proponents of this teaching reject all innovationsbrought to Islam - for example, worship of saints and imams, as Shiites do - and require strict worship exclusively to Allah, as it was during the period of early Islam.
Despite the extreme views, the Wahhabis preached fraternity and unity of the Muslim world, condemned luxury, sought social harmony and adherence to the principles of morality.

The teachings of al-Wahhab were once supported by many Arabian sheikhs. But with the support of the Saudi clan, who fought for the unification of the Arabian Peninsula under their rule, Wahhabism became a religious and political teaching, and later - the official ideology of Saudi Arabia, as well as a number of Arab Emirates.

[Murai]

Wahhabism is a teaching, appeared in Islam relatively recently. This is a teaching within the framework of Sunnism. created in the middle of the XNUMXth century, a religious leader in Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab.

For the reasonable it seems enough.

show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls Wahhabis Sunnis

Answer this question in the end.
And in general, I'm tired of this correspondence, I don’t understand, I need to leave.
May God direct the truth to everyone who strives for it, and the Jew and others. :)

[chukapabra]

Quote: Murai

show me which of the recognized Sunni scholars calls Wahhabis Sunnis

All references that I have cited clearly say that Wahhabism is within the Sunni trend of Islam. To make it simple, give me a link to at least one respected scientist from you, where he claims that the Wahhabis are not Sunnis. Without your personal interpretation, as until no convincing argument has been brought. Which of the 3 areas (I think we have no dispute with this?) Belongs to the course of Wahhabism? To Sunnis, Shiites or Kharijits. (I ask you not to invent anything else, because there are only currents within the three main areas)
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC#.D0.A0.D0.B0.D0.B7.D
0.BB.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B5_.D1.82.D0.B5.D1.87.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D
0.B2_.D0.B8.D1.81.D0.BB.D0.B0.D0.BC.D0.B5
\

In 661, the righteous caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib was mortally wounded by Kharijit Ibn Muljam, after which most Muslims recognized Mu'awiyah as caliph, but some Muslims remained faithful to Ali and considered that the power in the Caliphate should belong to his descendants. So Muslims divided into Sunnis (Arabic - ahlu-sunnat wa-l-jama'ah), who recognized the legitimate power of Mu'awiyah and the Umayyad dynasty, on Shiites (arab. - shi'a), who still believe that power in the caliphate should belong only to the descendants of Ali (Alidam) and Kharijitswho did not join any of the groups.

Please objections, to an ignorant Jew, from a true Muslim, a connoisseur of the Koran.

[Yarbay]

Well, everything is clear with you))) In your opinion, only an ignorant Jew can push Islam)))))

[chukapabra]

Quote: Murai

At all times, the majority in Islam were Sunnis ~ 80%, and Wahhabis 2-3%.

Haha, delirium and babble.
In general, it is easier to say Wahhabism an orthodox sect within Sunni.

[Diesel]

A lot of unconfirmed facts are over, but let's hope

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Article minus, and big! The author of the paragraphs provides us with information on the latest developments of Iranian scientists. Rave! Iran does not and cannot have any scientific and technical base - there is nowhere to come from. Russia and only Russia provides Iran with these innovations (maybe as a testing ground) - this is clear as God's day!

[Yarbay]

Dear Suleiman!
I am also inclined to believe that much is a bluff about scientific developments !!
But you must admit that in some issues, especially in medicine and education, they made a big leap forward, although one could also say where it came from !!
As for the provision of new products to Iran, I’m thinking not only Russia, but also China and Pakistan!

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: Yarbay

in medicine and education

Iranian students study all over the world and to say that this is some kind of criterion is wrong. The scientific and technical potential of any country has been forming for decades, a galaxy of elites of scientists from all over the world consists of a few countries, and therefore, for many other reasons, Iran is not included in the cohort of highly developed countries of the world!

[Yarbay]

Here I agree with you !!
But is it possible then to write Iran conditionally into a country actively developing in science ??

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: Yarbay

But is it possible then to write Iran conditionally into a country actively developing in science?

Which place is dear Alibek? Weak and stupid copying or renaming of this or that discovery in your own? Well, no, they don’t have a technical base! Not!

[Yarbay]

Hmm ... Yes, even going to copy nuclear weapons!
But did not China copy and copy ??

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: Yarbay

Hmm ... Yes, even going to copy nuclear weapons!

The technology for creating nuclear weapons has been fully posted on the Internet, there is no need to copy it here, we need production capacities that Russia once created in Iran during the construction of nuclear power plants.

Quote: Yarbay

But did not China copy and copy ??

Unlike Iran, China is the "father" of copying and has been doing it since the 1950s! PS So for reference, almost all Asian countries are fond of copying, for example, the Japanese copied ships, or rather copied them (what is on the surface of the water), built, and they turned over and sank!

[islandpan]

In my opinion, the most important thing in the whole article - This behavior of America means that some important markets should be reserved for America - and only for it alone. here’s the ban on the sale of S-300, but the petriot themselves have sold!

[alex shnajder]

I am against the war, but nothing shines on Iran ... I have already read more than one such article about Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia .... no one will occupy it .. they’ll just throw it 50 years ago ...

[Yarbay]

Alex!
I think so too!!!
Americans are not and d and t s !!
If you set the goal you are talking about, then it will be easy to achieve!

[Ataturk]

America, as a rule, prefers to fight by someone else’s hands, at least the “right” to start a “big war” (in the interests of the USA), it usually “gives way” to someone else. Thus began the First and Second World Wars, so in March 2011, in Libya, the Americans forced it to do European partners in NATO, led by France, so a new “big war” could begin. And the fact that this war will be exactly the “Big” can be understood from the composition of possible participants in the events.

In addition to the United States, Israel, Turkey and other countries of the NATO bloc, Saudi Arabia, are likely to be drawn into it. Syria, Lebanon, Georgia, Azerbaijan, and indirectly Russia, China, Pakistan, and the countries of Central Asia can be directly involved in hostilities. Events are developing in such a way that Israel or Turkey can act as the “shooter” of the war, claiming to be the regional leader and growing an anti-government alliance on its territory in front of the whole world, which is eager to unleash a civil war in Syria. A similar situation in Libya gave rise to the bombing of this country from the air, the introduction of special forces and the assassination of its leader. At the same time, despite the desire to fight with the wrong hands, it is unlikely that the USA (and NATO) will be able to completely “wash their hands” (and they, apparently, are not going to do this). Therefore, they will “have to” join in military operations, motivating their mission with “forcing the warring parties to peace”.

For the United States, the option of conducting an independent air strike operation by the American armed forces to destroy the atomic, military and administrative structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran is considered the most profitable, and under certain conditions, they can start from Syria. The United States can begin military operations if it is agreed that the armed forces of Turkey and Israel (against Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon) will mainly participate in possible ground combat operations.

It is the US disarming strike on Iran that could become the torch that will kindle the fire of a great war in the Middle East. What can come of this, today no one knows. For, in the apt expression of Machiavelli, "you often start a war of your own free will, but when and how it ends, it no longer depends on you."

It’s hard to say whether its “enemy neighbors” will attack the weakened Iran or, on the contrary, support and unite in a common struggle against the “Gentiles”. East is a delicate matter.

After two wars in the Persian Gulf, no one has any illusions that the classical army of the "WWII" model (which includes the armies of Iran and Syria) can withstand modern NATO troops for a long time. However, does this mean that there is no strategy to defeat the Americans and force them to make peace on terms acceptable to the victim of aggression? We believe that there is such a strategy, if, of course, the defender can organize a response in a mode focused on what experts call suppression of "Boyd cycles" (OODA).

What could be the effective response of Iran (Syria) to external aggression?

In principle, the search for “winning behavioral strategies” by the IRI can be carried out within the framework of three basic paradigms:

1. The classic strategy of “normal battle”, which, most likely, is obviously losing for Iran and Syria due to the incomparability of the US military power (strengthened by the potential of NATO and Israel), unless, of course, a significantly higher level of “assabiy” plays its part ( group solidarity) on the Iranian side.

2. The strategy of "ordered risk" associated with the construction of "tree-like" (variant) response structures aimed at suppressing "Boyd cycles" with an assessment of the effectiveness of options and "cutting off" ineffective "branches". With this approach, "normal combat" loses its fixed result; instead, we get a statistical distribution of the options. Only within the framework of the "ordered risk strategy" for the "weak side" of a military conflict can the desire to "escape from certainty" be realized, the "assabiya factor" can be fully realized and one can look for one's chances at the "edge of the probability distribution" of battle outcomes. The "probabilistic war" maintains a state of uncertainty.

3. The strategy of "emergent risk", which causes a "case of unexpected outcome", aimed, in particular, at the realization of the conditions of "reverse" by those formulated in the famous "Liddel Garth axiom". Namely, it is necessary to make sure that for America (and in general for the "party of war") the post-war "victorious" world was worse than the pre-war one.

[Ataturk]

You don’t have to be a great military specialist to understand that, due to the incomparability of US military power as a result of the implementation of this plan within the framework of only a “conventional” war, Iran (together with Syria) is likely to lose the war. Under the current conditions, the only “winning strategy” for Iran is the rejection of conventional methods of warfare in favor of unconventional ones.

According to Sergei Pereslegin (“South versus North. New Strategy”), a possible “winning strategy” for the “weak” side of the conflict, which is almost entirely focused on waging an “unconventional” war, may be the following.

As part of the conduct of such a war, Iran must (hereinafter I quote S. Pereslegin) “try to provide the Americans with such losses that public opinion considers excessive. It should not be forgotten that their own losses of the "faithful" do not matter - this is their religion or ideology ...

Until now, it is believed that partisan actions are a defensive form of warfare and can only be conducted on their own territory and with the full support of the people of partisan formations. However, the high transport connectivity, characteristic of modern European states, makes the concept of "home territory" very ephemeral, and the support of the people can be successfully replaced by financial support. The concept of an OFFENSIVE GUERRILLA (TERRORIST) WAR is emerging.

At present, the participation of a Western state in local (that is, not affecting the very foundations of its existence) wars is conceivable only if the rule is observed in which the personal life of citizens, freedom of movement, freedom of choice of occupation, not to mention personal safety and standard of living, are not must be seriously jeopardized by the country's participation in the war.

This means that the West will not be able to effectively prevent the infiltration of small terrorist groups into its territory. Penetration is possible legal: in the form of tourism or a business trip, and illegal: crossing the border with an armed military unit ... It is important to understand that terrorist groups do not require special training and therefore will be very cheap to manufacture. In fact, they are NOT given the task of combating the armed forces of Western states, sabotage against well-protected targets or terrorist acts against specially protected people. These groups must kill unarmed people. Ideally, easily achievable, women and children. By the way, terrorist groups can also consist of women and children.

It is clear that such groups have no chance of survival. Most likely, 9 out of 10 of them will be destroyed before the first terrorist act. Tenth, however, will provide the necessary effect ...

The actions of such groups will have a twofold effect. The strongest impact on the psyche of the Western inhabitant will have not only terrorist acts, but also the attempts of the state to fight them ... As part of an offensive guerrilla strategy, the actions of "cheap" non-professional terrorists can be supported by a small number of well-trained groups. Such groups can engage in attacks on large civilian airports (it is extremely difficult to cover control points from portable anti-aircraft systems with a range of several kilometers), sabotage against the computer systems of large exchanges, and disabling computer networks. It can be very effective to "hunt" for individuals whose death sentences are announced in advance and officially. (There is an analogue: the Salman Rushdie case.)

Finally, bacteriological warfare can be launched. The easiest way to organize it is by sending several infected people to major airports. High transport connectivity will turn the epidemic into a pandemic.

In fact, the strategy under consideration is the use of the methods of total war in local wars. It is based on the fact that in the framework of the European system of values, the cost of human life is immeasurably higher than in the framework of the values ​​of traditional Islam.

It is essential that the West's response cannot be similar terrorist actions (for example, in the form of nuclear bombing of large enemy cities), since this means rejection of its own value system, and, consequently, the victory of the "third world" system.

Let me remind you that the goal of the war is peace, which is better than the pre-war one, if only from your point of view. Will today's Europeans consider the peace achieved at the cost of nuclear strikes on large "fundamentalist" cities as better than the pre-war one? .. "

The methods of conducting an “unconventional” war described in the fragment cited above by no means exhaust the entire spectrum of possible technologies arising from the strategy of “emergent risk”.

It should be noted that in the history of the Middle East military conflict there is already a precedent for the conduct of a successful "unconventional" war, attributed to the Iranian side.

In April 1982, a suicide bomber attacked the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in a car bomb (63 dead). On October 23, 1983, the barracks of the American and French military contingents were simultaneously attacked by mined vehicles. The building, which housed the headquarters of the American battalion, was completely destroyed. As a result of these attacks, 241 American and 58 French troops were killed. In early November, a terrorist attack was carried out against Israeli forces in Tire, killing about 30 people. In the same time period, a disco was carried out near an American military base in Germany, where about 200 people died. As a result, the Western states curtailed the “peacekeeping” operation in Lebanon.

It should be noted that the military historical tradition of the East also knows other examples of the successful conduct of the “unconventional” war of the “weak” against the “strong”. These examples are primarily associated with the activities of the “old man of the mountain” to effectively deter the onslaught of the European military forces (crusaders) by targeting the enemy in the countries of the feudal West. To organize such an action, the corresponding “power structure” of the order type — assassins — was involved.

In this regard, it should be noted that in Iran there is an Al-Quds special operations unit, which is not part of the Ministry of Information (ie Iranian intelligence), but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ("order type" structure). According to the American side, Al-Quds not only knew about the plot being prepared for the assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, but also participated in it.

“Since someone in the world wants to make our region unsafe, we will make the whole world unsafe,” said Parviz Sarvari, member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Defense Committee. Iran’s only winning strategy is the conduct of an “unconventional” war. When deciding on a “big war”, the Americans will have to seriously think about it.

[Geton]

Very interesting .

[DEfindER]

I liked the new financial trick of amers, how to push competitors out of the market of any country. You declare the country an enemy, you impose sanctions, you run into those who collaborated with this state under the pretext of sanctions and resolutions, i.e. you drive them out of the market and calmly seize this market .. Once again I am convinced that K. Marx is right - "There is no crime that Capital would not commit."

[SAMEDOV SULEYMAN]

Quote: DEfindER

Once again I am convinced of the correctness of Karl Marx - "There is no crime that Capital would not commit"

"+"

[Reddragon]

And the world is even better

[Brummbar]

Iran is unnecessary to the United States and Israel in any form not nuclear or non-nuclear. The fact that Iran will defeat the United States is certainly fantastic, but there will be no repetition of the Iraqi company. Iran remained the only uncontrolled major oil seller in the Middle East. Claims to Iran will subside as soon as he tests his Y. bomb and preferably 3-4 charges at once so that it would not be clear how much he has all of them. But here, Israel is in a hurry to its own J.O. can erase the whole of Iran in ruin and then they say that we did not want to blame Hitler for everything.

[Odesit]

Self-propelled BRUMBAR.
Iran will win in any case, no moral motivation, let alone grounds - "the goal of the safety of amers and Jews" does not exist and cannot be!
In the end, if Iran does have nuclear weapons, it will not attack us, and let the Jews twitch, and let them not forget that they are very disliked. "
This BAND has already done too much in the world. It's time to end this.
It is time for them to understand that they are not alone in deciding everything in a NEW WORLD!
And THE REST OF ALL IS TRUE CAMRADE.

[AK-74-1]

Not real reality. An interesting plan and interesting comments. Great article.

[DERWISH]

SIGNIFICANTLY PLUS, BECAUSE THE SCENARIO LIKED ONLY WOULD BE WITHOUT THIRD WORLDWIDE !!!! SO SUCH AN AMEROUS !!!! ! I AM LAUGHING YOURSELF !!! EVERYTHING WILL BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE DIFFICULT AND MORE !!! THEREFORE THE WAR IS NEEDED ANY WAY TO AVOID AND RUSSIA AND CHINA CAN COMPLETE THIS

[Pilot200809]

Iran is not Libya; Get the Yankees in the teeth. Israel itself will not turn up, although their army is probably the most combat-ready, but small in number, and local Arabs will take the side of co-religionists. If they wanted, they would have started a long time ago, and so they realized that they would kick something.

[Kyrgyz]

So a good move, impose sanctions and trade yourself without competition

[ShturmKGB]

CIA ears visible in all conflicts

[Odesit]

Good day to all.
Iran will fight and rightly so. Russia should not change its position.
The intervention of Amer’s subhuman is not permissible.
And with regards to the professionalism of Amer’s pseudo-war, one can argue.
Understand dear kamarads, if we allow these scum of humanity to torture IRAN and SYRIA, sooner or later these ghouls will try to make "byaka" and GREAT RUSSIA!
While they are afraid and it is necessary to maintain this fear in them further. Enough have suffered from these "bad people".
They must be crushed and, moreover, crushed tightly.
IF NOT RUSSIA WHO ?? !!
The rest of the world is weak.

[Patriot]

EVERYTHING is true in the article. THERE IS ONLY SORRY FOR OUR COUNTRY. POOR, LEGAL AND WEAK.
YES also with anti-people’s ghouls at the head.

[IGR]

To the author +.
I looked through everything with interest and went to read Alexander Afanasyev and his cycle "disintegration period", where everything is described in literary form, but quite authentically, both in the article and in the posts of distinguished comrades.

[PARROT]

90% here do not soberly look at the forces of the United States and its allies, the truth is that countries like Iran can not do anything serious in case of conflict.

[Odinplys]

Given the property inherent in the leadership of Iran ... to work ahead of the curve ... the impossible can become possible ... Europe did not have time to hint ... and felt the loss from closing the Iranian crane right away ...
And if Iran is sure that a strike will be struck tomorrow ... then tomorrow may not come primarily in Israel ... and given that there is no fighter stronger than a frightened Jew in the world ... Fascist Zionists are unlikely to allow the United States to do anything .. .Moreover, today the situation with enriched uranium in Iran is not known ... even dirty uranium is enough for Israel ... and there you look and China will not resist the temptation to destroy the fascist Zionists ...
I think that Iran has already won the war ... it simply won’t be ...

[Patriot]

COMRADE. How do you like this news?

By decree of the President of Tatarstan, Rustam Minnikhanov, the ex-minister of internal affairs of the republic Asgat Safarov, who resigned after a scandal in the Kazan police department "Dalniy", was appointed acting deputy prime minister of the republic

As they say. Another indicative example that none of the current government will ever answer. The offenders will simply be shoved a little further away. As they say, the bandit-thieves' authorities tremulously value their "CHADAS" and will never give them offense. If only because they, in turn, will begin to hand over their higher sawmills, and further higher. And thus this pyramid of corruption, theft and sawing will surely collapse like a house of cards.

God grant that this happens as soon as possible!

[Rodver]

Corruption sits on corruption and drives corruption. Plus the family ties of Kazan princes.

[Geton]

Does Rustam love champagne?

[Georg Shep]

Long live the victory of Iran both in science and technology! Yankees and Zionists - "Go home!"

[ymNIK1970]

"I am generally a Jew and therefore I cannot a priori raise Wahhabis." Well, you man gave KOPOTI. I read your comments very carefully, interestingly, informatively, and when I read THIS I laughed to tears. Thanks again to everyone for the information.